DISCOURSESAt HitmanForum |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Living Humans? [ FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL THREAD HERE] Opening statement by Blood Dave: I was having one of my "bored shitless think about random shit" sessions before and I realised... there is not one thing in the world that anyone can do!! So I took it back to basics: Sit doing nothing... they might have terrets (dont know how to spell that!!) I bet ya that nobody can tell me one thing that anyone in the whooooole world could do. Blood Dave wrote: I find it curious that you first declare that you 'haven't lost', and then later follow it up with that contradictory statement about how the point of this conversation isn't to beat anybody. For if it isn't a challenge to defeat or a point to prove wrong, what would be the point of you claiming that you haven't been defeated? Perhaps it would benefit the participants of this discussion if we actually specify what is meant by the world 'person', or 'individual'. (which is what this discussion is about, isn't it? people?) This would therefore bring us to consider if stillborns and dead people come under the same heading, or if they should go into another category called 'once-people'. In my humble opinion, a 'human being' refers to an entity whose DNA comes from the same gene pool as the rest of the human population - that bit is easy. However, I feel that a 'person' is more than a vessel for DNA; a 'person' would probably be more aptly described as an organic body (with DNA from the same gene pool as other humans) that is alive. (Alive by medical/biological definition, which encompasses growth - although, arguably, growth in humans plateaus at certain points of their lives, unless you wanted to bring cell division and negative growth into the equation -, metabolism, response to stimulus, and motion - be it internal or external) Therefore, only living human beings would be considered persons; stillborns and people who've died would therefore be excluded from this discussion. [If you wanted to be more picky, then by most definitions a 'person' would be a living entity in possession of a mind, be the mind fully conscious or retarded by disease or genetic defect, or latent in the event of coma. (There are those who insist that 'persons' are living human beings who are conscious of their existence - which is an unresolved debate, and anyway we won't take it that far). If taken in that context, only living humans would have a mind (it being the product of neural processes), and dead ones do not, and therefore no longer fulfill the 'person' requirement] Forgive me if I'm rambling - coffee tends to do that to me. Carry on, do - I shall just resume guzzling this mug of caffeinated poison. Veritas wrote: This question must be answered before we can even begin to think about whether it might be possible to build a person. Let alone consider it to be living. The English term, "person," is rather ambiguous. We often use it as a synonym for "human being." But surely that is not what we intend here. (As Kfarlander pointed out brilliantly – the difference between our definition of a person and a human-being.) To be most clear we can take a 3rd-person standpoint and look at “persons” relative in order to define what it is to be a “person”. For instance, it is possible that there are aliens frolicking on other planets(pure speculation for use of example only.) that have the same cognitive abilities that we do. Imagine this, aliens that speak a language, make moral judgments, create literature and works of art, et cetera. Surely “aliens” with these properties would be "persons"--which is to say that it would be morally wrong to buy or sell them as property the way we do with dogs and cats or to otherwise use them for our own interests without taking into account the fact that they are moral agents with interests that deserve the same protection that ours do. Thus, one of our primary interests is to distinguish persons from property. A person is the kind of entity that has the moral right to make its own life-choices, to live its life without (unprovoked) interference from others. Property is the kind of thing that can be bought and sold, something I can "use" for my own interests. [Of course when it comes to animals, there are serious moral constraints on how they may be "used." There have been all sorts of…”philosophical” debates concerning the ethical treatment of animals and whether animals may not themselves have extensive rights not commonly accorded them in our society. So, if you’d like to discuss then please find the thread. I feel it’s safe to say it doesn’t belong here since the focus is “persons” and not “animals”. Though a person is considered an animal we are delving into the more personal psychological and emotional stand point that, thus far, have been proven only to exist with humans and possibly simians.] Persons are not to be treated as property. Henceforth, we shall define a person as follows:
PERSON = "any entity that has the moral right of self-determination." One of the primary philosophical questions that concern me in this discussion is: What properties must an entity possess to be a "person"? Many properties have been suggested: Intelligence, the capacity to speak a language, creativity, the ability to make moral judgments, consciousness, free will, a soul, self-awareness et cetera - the list could go on indefinitely. Those who know me know I’m far from a Star Trek fan but when your professor is a die-hard he finds ways to incorporate it into everything and anything. A discussion about this topic was raised and he brought up the nature of personhood and pointed out an interesting thesis, advanced in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation ("The Measure of a Man"). I’d go into more detail about this episode but I feel it deals more on the existence of a conscious mind in inanimate objects rather than dealing with the existence of personal attributes in inanimate objects. If you know what I’m talking about and would like to discuss Data’s fight for equality – Peace between Androids and man – then we can do so. As it is I think there are more Star Wars fans here anyway. [edit] Just to sum up that episode, though - really quickly: They investigate an important question: -- Is it possible that a machine could be a person? In the Star Trek episode, it is assumed that anything that is "sentient" should be granted the status of "personhood" and Commander Maddox suggests that being sentient requires that the following three conditions must be met:
The one thing both parties are unsure of is wether or not Data is conscious! Their arguments are as follows: Maddox - I consider Commander Data to be unaware to the point of consciousness thus he cannot be considered a person. Picard - We have no real way of determining wether or not Data is conscious so we should treat his as if he was. Go cap'n P. go! In short...I think Maddox was owned. He had no real evidence and thus couldn't prove his point either way. Nor could Picard but instead of dismissing it he proved once again he was an ethical leader.[woah I'm a geek. ] monkeyman wrote: Commander Data can't get stabbed - He's in posession of a solid iron frame. :p Though, I suppose if it's fiction it doesn't count and he can probably be "stabbed" any number of ways with any number of objects - perhaps he has a weak spot? Although androids do exist...but not on the level we would consider to be in posession of personhood. Hmm... zm47: I have a few questions about some of your examples of what makes you not a person. Hm, I don't know if you're up to talking about those so I'll wait. Uhm, with all of this discovery of that a person is I'd like to emphasize KFarlander's point that the basic point still remains in that we can all agree that, in order to be a person, you must be living. (Well, said KFarlander, well said.) I'm sure there are exceptions, androids, but we have yet to develop an android similar to Commander Data in that we can consider him to be a likely candidate for personhood. [bla bla bla] Are there any phychologists in the house that would like to give their take on the matter? Christians even? There are so many points where one could take the term "living". Jesus...I'm going to stop now. ;>_> I've rambled on enough for one morning...Midnight Express. Mmmm... c[_] Rawr. Ver: I like where this conversation is heading! Interesting that you should bring up Data. Because, at it happens, there's another interesting case in the history of science fiction debating the androids vs humans issue (as to whether androids deserve to be granted 'human/person' status). I'm of course referring to Isaac Asimov's 'The Positronic Man' (not the Hollywood farce they made out of it, starring Robin Williams). If you haven't read the book... well, it's about a robot designed to be a housekeeper cum nanny who surprises the family by doing things that aren't in his programming - starting with his unusual affinity for woodcraft, exhibiting a sense of curiosity - followed by what he discovered to be 'feelings' for one of the little girls he is taking care of, which he identifies as love. This leads to him trying to gain his 'freedom', which takes him to the court; having won his freedom, he spends years trying to follow human customs and tradition, and even more time doing research in prosthetics and trying to establish (from a long line of battles in court) what exactly it is that makes one 'human'. In the end, having tried everything and fail, he makes the ultimate sacrifice, arriving at the conclusion that what separates humans from robots is mankind's mortality - that any other part of the human body may be replaced (without the person losing his 'human' status), BUT the human brain MUST die... and because the human brain is the seat and centre of a person and is therefore irreplacable, this means the person must also die. I think Asimov made a very interesting (and perhaps, in the future, important) point here. Our current technology hasn't *quite* yet gotten to the point where we are able to design robots with *real* artificial intelligence (but it is headed in that direction). One day we may build a robot that is aware, conscious of itself and the world around it. Would such an entity deserve the status 'person/human' if it so desires, and would we grant it to him? Given mankind's anthropocentric/egocentric view of the world, and his fierce tendency to jealously guard the (human) superiority status, though.... Personally, I'm inclined to believe that any entity that is self-aware and self- conscious deserves to be categorised 'sentient'; if such a conscious, sentient being understands what is meant by freedom and morality and responsibility, and if the said sentient being desires the status of personhood (having understood its implications) then there should be nothing to prevent the being from obtaining such a status. (I agree with you about the frolicking aliens being persons, Ver ) Of course, not having any androids like Data and Andrew Martin around, we'll just have to settle for the 'living' common denominator for now. KittyKitty wrote: I'd like to point out a serious logical inconsistency in this debate... A great deal of the potential things that we can all do have been negated by the argument of still birth. In some cases in fact, it has been argued that a still born has never lived, and therefore can never die. While in its own right, this may seem a reasonable validation, but if you consider it carefuly, you'll see that this very argument invalidates even using a still born as a valid case for argument -Allow me to explain. If you're trying to get people to list something that "anyone can do", which was your original criteria, first you have to have a clear definition of "everyone". If we're trying to establish a reasonable context, I think it must be agreed that we're talking about living human beings. If you consider a fetus that ever did have life to be in that category, that's fine. But then they count as having lived, and inevitably, as having died. Conversely, if you do not count anything that was never born and alive in the world outside its mother's womb to be a living human being, then those still born fetuses have no weight to invalidate anything we can all do, since they don't qualify for the criteria you're using for your "control group". Put quite simply, you can not have it both ways. Either they count (and therefore live and die), or they do not and therefore can't invalidate anything that "anyone can do." That said, my contribution is that we can all be at least decent human beings for whatever amount of time we have here if we wish. Even someone who lacks the capacity to think and make decisions (such as severe cases of brain damage or forms of retardation -though these are largely still not understood) would qualify here since it requires a concious choice to do something that includes malice or hatred. Veritas wrote: Thank you much KFarlander. And yes, that book was eons ahead of the movie. An excellent read and an equally excellent concept to think about. Though, it does make for a rather gloomy story overall in most ways you look at it. And yes, we'll hold off on the Androids being in posession of personhood because we've yet to come across such technology: not that we don't already have the means but yes, the understanding is there. -^.^- Nice point KittyKitty. (great name too) I'm assuming your statement was directed towards Blood Dave. And you're right but at the same time I must say you can have both and each can be correct. And, to be clear, it is not one person who can have both opinions - that's just contradicting - but you can have both opinions in society. Most people define life in different ways for different purposes and surely there are more than two. The most prominent and most used method for every day situations we have a common-sense set of criteria along the lines of:
[If I've missed anything feel free to add.] At the moment the question is: Is it possible for anything to be done to define life that doesn't consist of repetitious methods to identify such every day notions? To this I must quote:
John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler wrote: I agree completely. If anything before we can progress and get closer to a solution for our definition of what “always is or isn’t” - in relation to the living - we should first agree on a proper definition of what it is to live. For the simple reason that it always seems to come up and just as quickly is dismissed as having been generally understood in the same light when, as you can see, it isn't. I propose we look a definition of what useful life is. Such a definition would encompass attributes such as: Suffiency, Common Usage, Extensibility, Simplicity, and Objectivity. If all else fails we should look to math. Anyone up for a Biology Joke? Well, here it is anyway: KittyKitty wrote: Veritas wrote: Oops. Sorry if I was less clear originally. I agree completely. I'm not saying that either standpoint is right or wrong - That's not something I care to judge for anyone but myself. So yes, both situations can exist and be completely viable. But not from the same source (person). I'm pretty sure it was indeed Blood Dave who (as far as I could tell) did both... He used the still birth to indicate that the entity never lived/died.. and then later used it to say that it couldn't do other things. As I would see it, if you're of the opinion that it was never alive, you can't then use it to define what we (as living human beings) can or can't do. Erm.. I'm talking in circles again aren't I? =p Anyway.. yeah, agreed. LOL. |
|